Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 20 May 22 >

May 21[edit]

Category:Laundry law[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category; there is no real-life legal area called "Laundry law"; this is just used to tag a bunch of cases where one of the parties happened to be a laundry, and there's no connection other than that tenuous one. For example Muller v. Oregon is a wage-and-hours labor case; Barbier v. Connolly is about state police powers and the Fourteenth Amendment; Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States is about the eminent domain and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment; etc. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Might make a list though. Johnbod (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If the intention is to collect cases that involve laundries, the category title should be to that effect: e.g., "Category:Legal cases involving laundries". And if you allow that, the possibilities are never-ending. Ha! Wanderin' Wolf (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if there were notable laundry laws that affect laundries as laundries perhaps... but this isn't that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading in name, and non-defining in intent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History of Arsenal F.C.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Note that the category has already been emptied. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-compliance with all other English clubs. I would move everything to the Arsenal FC category and limit the matches to the Category:English football club matches where all other clubs have their matches. Wanderin' Wolf (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Only two articles are about history. The rest includes simply events that have happened and statistics that are both historic and contemporaneous. SFB 23:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Arsenal F.C., which is not so overpopulated as to need this split. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek gods in fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering 08:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category's contents is an amalgum of both Greek gods and Roman gods in fiction (Neptune, Hercules, etc. along with Poseidon and Heracles). It doesn't make sense to parse them out since there is a huge overlap between them and would invite category clutter in the categorized articles, hence my proposal is keep the category as is but re-title it to more accurately reflect its contents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sensible. Johnbod (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 02:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree. Wanderin' Wolf (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but then sort them properly and split by pantheon (Roman and Greek) at the larger category and any similar categories. While there's a relationship between the pantheons, they are not directly equatable. It's sloppy encyclopedia work to do so.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SMcCandlish: Then why not keep this category and create Category:Roman gods in fiction next to it? I don't have a clear opinion myself, just trying to understand the purpose of first merging and then splitting. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't much care, when it comes to the actual mechanics. The current content sorted (not just in this category) is a commingled mess, so it needs to get sorted out into Greek and Roman. If someone wants to do that, and create the corresponding Greek and Roman separate categories into which to sort, then great. I have a suspicion that what's more likely to happen is everyone will groan and not want to do it, so we'll end up merging to have one mess to clean up instead of two, and then sometime between next month and 2037 someone will bother to actually sort them out separately by culture.  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Advance Wars (series)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, category will never increase from its current size (at least, not that we know of). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as same topic. SFB 02:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nintendo Wars[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, both should not exist at the same time. They are just creating confusion. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as same topic. SFB 02:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a duplicate, but prefer the Nintendo Wars name as clearer.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films scored by composer by decade[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No need to split these categories by decade. --woodensuperman 12:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. No other category structure by decade for this type of thing. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge.per nom. Separating works by decade is not helping. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nominator. There is no need for separation by decades since the items in them not significantly large in number. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 10:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women mayors of places in British Columbia[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategorization by province of a category which does not meet the conditions required to qualify for an exemption from WP:OCLOCATION: the intersection of "women mayor" with individual province is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic in its own right, and the parent category isn't large enough to require diffusion as there are only 144 articles across this entire tree combined. Upmerging to "mayors of places in (Province)" not required, as all of the articles here were left in there alongside this if they weren't already subcatted by city in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep -- All have more than 5 articles which is the accepted minimum. 144 is getting towards the level where we might want a split anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_21&oldid=1073191743"